1 CGHC010104502026 2026:CGHC:40233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 754 of 2026 1 - Rakesh Rathour S/o Gourishankar Rathour Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Post Office At Saravan-Gouhniroad, P S Gouhaan, District Jaaloun, Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Sumit Rathour @ Luchche S/o Rakesh Rathour Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Post Office At Saravan-Gouhniroad, P S Gouhaan, District Jaaloun, Uttar Pradesh. ... Appellants Versus * - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O To P S Manipur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “the SC/ST Act”), seeking to set aside the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.), whereby the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, “the BNSS”), in connection with Crime No. 184/2025 registered at Police Station- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.15 18:04:09 +0530 2 Manipur, District Sarguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 87, 3(5), 137(2), 140(3), 142, 144(2), 64(2) (i) , 69, 61(2) (a) and 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, “the BNS”) and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, has been rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellants along with other co-accused persons have threatened the girls and giving the bluff of work in other State, has sold the girls to the persons and forcefully got them married with other persons. On the written complaint of the complainant, the FIR bearing Crime No. 184/2025 was registered against the main accused Kabil Ansari and during investigation the appellants were arrested by the police on 26.06.2025 and vide order dated 11.12.2025, the bail application of the appellants was rejected and thereafter the charge sheet has been filed in which the offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was added. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the allegations with regard to human trafficking was against the co- accused namely Shakil Khan and Imran Ansari. He would submit that the allegation against the present appellants is that they sexually exploited the prosecutrix aged about 21 years, who is member of scheduled tribe community. He would contend that the prosecutrix has already been examined and she has categorically stated that she had performed marriage along with Sumit Rathor @ Luchche (appellant no. 2 herein). He would submit that in the present case, 05 witnesses out of 24 have been examined and there are contradictions and omissions as well as exaggerations in their 3 depositions. He would contend that the appellants are in jail from 26.06.2025, therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent would contend that the appellants are father and son and there is allegation to the effect that they sexually exploited the prosecutrix. He would further contend that the bail application moved by the co-accused persons against whom there is allegation of human trafficking have already been dismissed. He would submit that the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of appellant No. 2 at Jaaloun, UP. He would submit that the medical report corroborates ocular evidence and allegation made in F.I.R. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Having considered the fact that there is allegation of sexual exploitation against the present appellants who are father and son and further there is no documentary evidence with regard to marriage between prosecutrix and appellant No. 2. Admittedly the prosecutrix is member of scheduled tribe community and she has been sexually exploited by the non-tribes, further in examination-in- chief the prosecutrix has categorically supported the case of prosecution, I am not inclined to pass any order to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti